“1)Who told you i am confused ?
2)Who told you it does not make sense to me ?
3)Who told you i have not done so ?”

The answer to all three of those questions is you.

You said “How about we let the bible on side at the moment, and just looke where the scientific evidence leads us ? “

“We” are not the ones that brought the bible into it in the first place.

I said “The ‘angels beating their wings’ theory of celestial mechanics was a fairly common view in christian circles prior to Newton.” in response to something that you said, and your response to this was “But its not biblical, and therefore worthless.” I would be perfectly happy to set the bible aside, and, if you don’t bring it up. it won’t come up.

You said “I think we have a pretty well understanding about the fact , that the universe most probably had a absolute beginning, that it is finely tuned to life, that life needs codified complex and specified information in the cell, that a moral sense is common amongst any tribe and population, that thoughts , will, emotions , speech is a capability of the sould and the spirit, and so a separate entity than the body. All this cannot be explained in a satisfied manner through naturalism, but points straight to a intelligent creator. No god of the gaps argument applies to any of these issues.”

I just put the word ‘gaps’ in that last sentence because it looks like its absence was merely a typo on your part. Sometimes I do that, also. My mind will sort of outrun my fingers, and I will omit a word. If that is what actually happened, then, this is one of many examples of things that you said that lead to the conclusion ‘This person is obviously confused’ . If you remove that last sentence, what you said there is a textbook perfect example of the ‘god of the gaps’ argument, and is precisely the formulation of the god of the gap argument used currently by the Intelligent Design camp.

You bring up the bible, and say that we should set the bible aside, you state the classic example of the god of the gaps argument to say that you aren’t applying the god of the gaps argument, and you say ‘just look where the scientific evidence leads us’, which is a bare-bones version of methodological naturalism, to suggest that methodological naturalism is not the best way to proceed. What conclusion is one to draw from that, if not ‘this person is clearly quite confused.’ ?

So, for the sake of clarity, this would be a good time to back up and start from scratch. You asked why methodological naturalism is always the process used to find explanations for natural phenomena, and supernatural explanations are dismissed out of hand, receiving no serious consideration at all.
The answer to that question is because methodological naturalism works, and supernatural explanations do not. Methodological naturalism has not answered all of the questions yet, but, supernatural explanations haven’t answered any of the questions yet. Many supernatural explanations have been offered over the centuries, and all have eventually fallen flat on their face. The contrast between germ theory and wrath of god theory, universal gravitation theory and angelwing theory, psychiatry and demon possession, etc… make this point quite clearly.

If you know of someone that has a supernatural explanation for some physical phenomenon that will withstand being rigorously tested, that would be very interesting to see, but, if the strategy is merely to counter accepted scientific knowledge with ‘But, what if your wrong?’ you will find that this is an idea that will have difficulty getting any traction at all. Scientists are perpetually asking themselves that question already.

“1)Who told you i am confused ?
2)Who told you it does not make sense to me ?
3)Who told you i have not done so ?”

The answer to all three of those questions is you.

You said “How about we let the bible on side at the moment, and just looke where the scientific evidence leads us ? “

“We” are not the ones that brought the bible into it in the first place.

I said “The ‘angels beating their wings’ theory of celestial mechanics was a fairly common view in christian circles prior to Newton.” in response to something that you said, and your response to this was “But its not biblical, and therefore worthless.” I would be perfectly happy to set the bible aside, and, if you don’t bring it up. it won’t come up.

You said “I think we have a pretty well understanding about the fact , that the universe most probably had a absolute beginning, that it is finely tuned to life, that life needs codified complex and specified information in the cell, that a moral sense is common amongst any tribe and population, that thoughts , will, emotions , speech is a capability of the sould and the spirit, and so a separate entity than the body. All this cannot be explained in a satisfied manner through naturalism, but points straight to a intelligent creator. No god of the gaps argument applies to any of these issues.”

I just put the word ‘gaps’ in that last sentence because it looks like its absence was merely a typo on your part. Sometimes I do that, also. My mind will sort of outrun my fingers, and I will omit a word. If that is what actually happened, then, this is one of many examples of things that you said that lead to the conclusion ‘This person is obviously confused’ . If you remove that last sentence, what you said there is a textbook perfect example of the ‘god of the gaps’ argument, and is precisely the formulation of the god of the gap argument used currently by the Intelligent Design camp.

You bring up the bible, and say that we should set the bible aside, you state the classic example of the god of the gaps argument to say that you aren’t applying the god of the gaps argument, and you say ‘just look where the scientific evidence leads us’, which is a bare-bones version of methodological naturalism, to suggest that methodological naturalism is not the best way to proceed. What conclusion is one to draw from that, if not ‘this person is clearly quite confused.’ ?

So, for the sake of clarity, this would be a good time to back up and start from scratch. You asked why methodological naturalism is always the process used to find explanations for natural phenomena, and supernatural explanations are dismissed out of hand, receiving no serious consideration at all.
The answer to that question is because methodological naturalism works, and supernatural explanations do not. Methodological naturalism has not answered all of the questions yet, but, supernatural explanations haven’t answered any of the questions yet. Many supernatural explanations have been offered over the centuries, and all have eventually fallen flat on their face. The contrast between germ theory and wrath of god theory, universal gravitation theory and angelwing theory, psychiatry and demon possession, etc… make this point quite clearly.

If you know of someone that has a supernatural explanation for some physical phenomenon that will withstand being rigorously tested, that would be very interesting to see, but, if the strategy is merely to counter accepted scientific knowledge with ‘But, what if your wrong?’ you will find that this is an idea that will have difficulty getting any traction at all. Scientists are perpetually asking themselves that question already.

I am indeed confused. But the reason is not my mindset, but your answer. Where in my arguments does the God of the gaps argument get in ? I have not said : We don’t know if the universe had most probably a beginning, therefore God, and so on…..

If you compare the substance of this
“ All this cannot be explained in a satisfied manner through naturalism, but points straight to a intelligent creator.” with the substance of this
“We don’t know ......., therefore God ” it will clear up that confusion about my answer. These are basically two slightly different ways of saying exactly the same thing. That is called the god of the gaps argument. The particular details mentioned were a little different, but, the point is the same. We can not currently explain something, so, it must be the work of a supernatural being. The way that I conduct that particular conversation would be more like “I do not currently understand this.” After conceding that I do not know, I don’t make that leap from “I don’t know” to “it must therefore be…” if I don’t know, that’s pretty much the end of the conversation for me. I can speculate what might be possible, but, the bottom line is still “I don’t know.”

I hope that you understand that I am honestly trying to work with you here. It is very easy to take a few lines of text in a variety of ways. I am not trying to put you down or insult you in any way. I am merely trying to point out the problems with what you are saying, and echoing them back to you so that you understand what this sounds like to someone else. Trying to plaster over the holes in our current level of understanding with a supernatural explanation will get you nowhere. Even some of the greatest minds in history have fallen prey to this same trap, so, don’t take it personally. Newton used god to explain what he didn’t understand, also. It’s just that, later on, someone else figured out how to explain the things Newton didn’t understand, and that explanation was by purely natural means, no gods necessary. The minute that someone falls back on the god of the gaps, they are officially out of the discovery business, and have nothing more to contribute to the advancement of scientific frontiers.

If you compare the substance of this
“ All this cannot be explained in a satisfied manner through naturalism, but points straight to a intelligent creator.” with the substance of this
“We don’t know ......., therefore God ” it will clear up that confusion about my answer. These are basically two slightly different ways of saying exactly the same thing.

the right philosophical question is : how can we best explain our existence ?

The odds a life permitting universe to exist by chance, are so big, that chance can be confidently discarded as a good explanation. There is no physcial need a life permitting universe to exist, therefore a intelligent creator makes most sense.

We can not currently explain something, so, it must be the work of a supernatural being.

Not so. We can confidently say, that complex, specified , codified information as stored in DNA has ALWAYS a mind as origin, therefore God is the origin of life. We do know that based on empirical, tested facts. So your argument does not withstand scrutiny. Its simply not true.

The odds a life permitting universe to exist by chance, are so big, that chance can be confidently discarded as a good explanation. There is no physcial need a life permitting universe to exist, therefore a intelligent creator makes most sense.

Not so. We can confidently say, that complex, specified , codified information as stored in DNA has ALWAYS a mind as origin, therefore God is the origin of life. We do know that based on empirical, tested facts. So your argument does not withstand scrutiny. Its simply not true.

There is a world of difference between “There are only three possibilities” and “I can only think of three possibilities.” So, let us take this one piece at a time.
“The odds a life permitting universe to exist by chance, are so big”

How, exactly, did you go about calculating those odds? Have you sampled a whole host of universes and found that life only exists in this one? The ingredients required for life are the most common things in the universe. Why can’t the development of life be virtually inevitable?

“We can confidently say, that complex, specified , codified information as stored in DNA has ALWAYS a mind as origin,”

On what, exactly, is this confidence based? Certainly not hard data, since there isn’t any hard data on making DNA. We have no examples in which it can be demonstrated conclusively that a specific strand of DNA was produced intentionally by a sentient being, so, that “therefore God is the origin of life.” thing does not follow at all. Even if you could demonstrate that a sentient being had, in fact, made a strand of DNA, which you can’t, you would then need to demonstrate that it was god that did it. It could have been someone else.

You say” We do know that based on empirical, tested facts.” but, what empirical, tested facts are refering to? As it often says in Wikipedia, “citations required”. If there were any tested, empirical facts, the creationists would be shouting them from the rooftops, but, they aren’t doing that.

It is my opinion that having no answer is better than having the wrong answer. When you accept the wrong answer as valid, you stop looking for the right answer. There are many, many questions to which science can not supply an answer, but, there are people trying just as hard as they can to figure it out. When someone starts filling in the blanks with “god did it”, they quit searching for the right answers, because they think that they already have them. Even though the answer “god did it” is completely useless because it explains nothing, adds nothing to our body of knowledge, says nothing at all about the mechanism by which things happen, and is utterly worthless for predicting what should happen next, some people will latch onto that as a legitimate explanation anyway, because it is easy and comfortable.

So, once again, this is why supernatural explanations are dismissed without consideration. They are worthless, untestable, and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they might be true. Methodological naturalism is a means of trying to get meaningful answers, and, has a track record of proven success.

How, exactly, did you go about calculating those odds? Have you sampled a whole host of universes and found that life only exists in this one? The ingredients required for life are the most common things in the universe. Why can’t the development of life be virtually inevitable?

It seems you are not familiar with the fine-tune argument of the universe.

The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

“We can confidently say, that complex, specified , codified information as stored in DNA has ALWAYS a mind as origin,”
On what, exactly, is this confidence based? Certainly not hard data

Well, that argument is actually based on hard data. It is statistically proven, that information as stored in DNA cannot arise by chance. It needs ALWAYS a mind.

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27^100 (ie. one chance in 10^143)

Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:10-40,000 for all of life’s 2,000 enzymes

This puts us back at the ‘You need to learn some science’ phase. I am thoroughly familiar with the fine-tuning argument, and it is not a valid argument. If you do decide to go learn some actual science, you will not be able to do that by going to whacko, creationist religious web sites like this god and science place or unmasking evolution.

I am familiar with Dr. Smolin’s work, have read a couple of books that he wrote, listened to some talks by him, etc… Rather than have this degenerate into I say one thing and your crazy religious websites say something else, all that you really need to understand is that, if you ask Lee Smolin if the universe was designed and set in motion by a conscious, intelligent being, the answer you would get would be a resounding ‘No, it was not.’ He does not believe that intelligent design foolishness. You should go to Lee Smolin to see what Lee Smolin thinks, not to some goofball that’s cherry picking things that he might or might not have said.

You said ” Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.” And you are just as wrong as wrong can be on each and every point.
1) All rocky planets have the needed minerals
2)Water is abundant in the solar system. The vast majority of the water in our solar system is not on the earth at all. Not having water is what would be strange.
3) The earth has had atmospheres of completely different composition throughout its history. The earths atmoshere for the first billion years of its existence would have killed us instantly.
4)Jupiter gets hit by asteroids, but so does the earth. There was the that thing called the period of heavy bombardment. What do you suppose that was about? Just step outside one night and look at the moon. Where do you suppose all of those big dents came from? A massive impact is credited, at least partially, for wiping out the dinosaurs.
5)Any rocky planet with a molten core will almost certainly have a magnetic field. Mars had one until the core cooled and solidified.
6) The rotaional speed of the earth has changed significantly over the billions of years of its existence.
7) again, any rocky planet with a molten core will have volcanoes. Have a peek at Olympus Mons on mars. That is one great big volcano.
8) The axial tilt of the earth shifted slightly after the earthquake that caused the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004. The entire planet vibrated. Does this mean that we are all going to die because of that? No. The earths axis could be significantly different from what it is, and, as long as it isn’t rolled over flat enough to cause wild fluctuations of temperature over the entire planet, life would still be here.
9) The thickness of the earth’s crust is not a fixed quantity. As the planet has cooled, the thickness has increased.

You need to learn at least some basic science from scientists, not religious whackos.

Although, on reflection, I see that you were correct on one point. What you said, as riddled with error as it was, actually is still the strongest argument for theism out there. What does that tell you?

That statement about ‘needs a mind’ is just plain silly. It also speaks of a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is. Descent with modification over time. Lots and lots of time. The individuals do not change, the population does. A member of the newest generation is born, hatched, whatever, with a slight genetic difference. Most of the time it is a handicap, but, occasionally, it offers a slight survival advantage. Or, maybe the environment changes, and some individuals are slightly better suited to survival than others.The individual better suited to survival is slightly more likely to reach maturity and pass that characteristic on to its offspring. Over millions of years, it accumulates. That this happens is a fact. We see complex life here now, but that is the result of billions of years of evolution.

Fred Hoyle did work of importance in the field of stellar nucleosynthesis. He also believed that the universe was static and eternal 70 years after Edwin Hubble showed that the universe was expanding, and tons of data was added on supporting the idea that the universe was expanding. This might seem strange, unless someone had heard the conversation that Hoyle had with Richard feynman, in which Hoyle said ” I do not set it as a requirement that something be true.” So, Fred Hoyle’s assessment is to be taken with a grain of salt.

There is a very good reason why it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in schools. There is no constitutional prohibition on teaching bad science in public schools. You can be wrong, stupid, or mis-informed and not be in violation of the constitution.The problem with intelligent design is that it is a couple of pegs below, wrong, stupid or mis-informed. It is religion, pure and simple. And, a very specific brand of religion, and the government can not promote one religion over all of the others. What you are trying to promote is not even bad science. It isn’t science at all.

I am familiar with Dr. Smolin’s work, have read a couple of books that he wrote, listened to some talks by him, etc… Rather than have this degenerate into I say one thing and your crazy religious websites say something else, all that you really need to understand is that, if you ask Lee Smolin if the universe was designed and set in motion by a conscious, intelligent being, the answer you would get would be a resounding ‘No, it was not.’

I know Smolins position. So what ? Smolin is a atheist, and therefore interprets the data to fit his world view. His opinion is just that : His personal opinion. Who looks however to the data without a naturalistic lense, comes obviously and easily to the conclusion, the odds are too big, to put chance into the game. Nobody would bet even a dime to such odds.

2)Water is abundant in the solar system. The vast majority of the water in our solar system is not on the earth at all. Not having water is what would be strange.

Water is an extremely rare compound in space. A permanent reserve of liquid water, a very unlikely occurrence in space, is known to exist only on the earth. Our planet possesses an abundant supply estimated at some 340 million cubic miles of liquid water.

Water in liquid form has many unique chemical and physical properties which make it ideal as the primary component of life and the solution of the world ocean. The solvent characteristic of water, for example, makes it possible for all essential nutrients needed by life to be dissolved and assimilated. The fact that water is transparent to visible light makes it possible for marine algae to perform photosynthesis below the ocean surface and for ocean animals to be able to see through water. Water is one of only a few substances which expands when it freezes, preventing our ocean and lakes from freezing from the bottom upward.

One of the most remarkable properties of water is its high heat-capturing and heat-holding capacity. The ocean is less reflective than the land to incoming solar radiation and thereby absorbs more of the sun’s energy than equal areas of land. It also takes much more heat to raise the temperature of a unit mass of seawater one degree than it does for an equal mass of the continents. Since the average temperature of the ocean is about 45 degrees Fahrenheit, the ocean will cool the hotter equatorial land portions of our planet and warm the colder polar regions. Furthermore, ocean currents caused by the earth’s rotation serve to circulate seawater and prevent the equatorial seas from becoming too hot and the polar seas from becoming too cold and freezing completely.

The world ocean serves as a reservoir for some very important chemicals besides water. Most of our planet’s carbon dioxide is dissolved in seawater, being in equilibrium with the atmosphere. The recent addition of large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning of fossil fuels has not significantly raised the amount of that gas in the atmosphere. Most of the combustion-derived carbon dioxide has been absorbed by the ocean.

From our discussion it should be evident that the presence of an ocean on our planet is an evidence of God’s planning and foresight. No other planet is known to have a permanent supply of liquid water. The chemical and physical properties of liquid water are necessary for life to survive. The world ocean regulates the earth’s temperature and serves as a reservoir for many important chemicals.

3) The earth has had atmospheres of completely different composition throughout its history. The earths atmoshere for the first billion years of its existence would have killed us instantly.

from the same source :

The earth’s atmosphere is composed of four important gases. The most abundant gas is nitrogen (N2) which comprises about 78% of the atmosphere. Oxygen gas (O2) is the second most common ingredient, being present at 21%. Argon gas (Ar) is third at slightly less than 1%. Fourth is carbon dioxide gas (CO2), present at 0.03%.

In our study of the atmosphere we see that its gases can be divided into two main categories ¾ inert gases and reactive gases. Argon is inert and nitrogen is relatively inactive. These enter into very few chemical reactions. It is indeed fortunate that nitrogen gas does not readily combine with oxygen, otherwise, we could have an ocean full of nitric acid!

Oxygen gas is the most common reactive gas in our atmosphere. The presence of abundant oxygen is the feature which most distinguishes our atmosphere, for oxygen in more than trace amounts has not been discovered in the atmosphere of any other planet.

Unlike nitrogen gas, oxygen gas readily enters into reactions with other gases, with organic compounds, and with rocks. The present level of oxygen seems to be optimum. If we had more oxygen, combustion would occur more energetically, rocks and metals would weather faster, and life would be adversely affected. If oxygen were less abundant, respiration would be more difficult and we would have a decreased quantity of ozone gas (O3) in the upper atmosphere which shields the earth’s surface from deadly ultraviolet rays.

Carbon dioxide is also a reactive gas which forms an essential part of our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is required by plants, serves to effectively trap the sun’s radiation, and mixes with water to form an acid which dissolves rocks adding an important substance called bicarbonate to the ocean. Without a continuing supply of carbon from the atmosphere, life would be impossible.

Important as carbon dioxide is to the present earth and life, it comprises only a mere 0.03% of our atmosphere! This small amount, however, seems to be at the optimum value. If we had less carbon dioxide, the total mass of terrestrial and marine plants would decrease, providing less food for animals, the ocean would contain less bicarbonate, becoming more acidic, and the climate would become colder due to the increased transparency of the atmosphere to heat. While an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause plants to flourish (a beneficial circumstance for the farmer), there would be some unfortunate side effects. A fivefold increase in carbon dioxide pressure (the optimum level for organic productivity) would alone cause the average world surface temperature to be a few tens of degrees Fahrenheit warmer! Also, a large increase in carbon dioxide would so accelerate the chemical weathering of the continents that an excess of bicarbonate would form in the ocean, leading to an alkali condition unfavorable for life.

The total density or pressure of our atmosphere appears to be ideal. The density is very important for it acts as an insulating blanket protecting the earth from the coldness of space. If the earth had a greater diameter, holding a more dense atmosphere, the thermal blanketing effect would be enhanced, producing a much warmer climate. If the earth were of smaller diameter, holding a less dense atmosphere, there would be a colder climate. As suggested earlier, the earth has the correct surface temperature, showing that the atmosphere has the proper density and that the earth has the proper size!

The atmosphere also serves to filter out ultraviolet light and cosmic rays. Both are harmful to life and would be much more common at the earth’s surface if the atmosphere were less dense. The atmosphere also burns up meteors. Long range radio communication is possible because the atmosphere is the correct density to reflect some radio frequencies. Furthermore, the atmosphere reflects unwanted stellar noise which could interfere with radio.

This analysis shows that our atmosphere has both the correct composition and density. How, except by divine planning and design, could our atmosphere have formed?

4)Jupiter gets hit by asteroids, but so does the earth. There was the that thing called the period of heavy bombardment. What do you suppose that was about? Just step outside one night and look at the moon. Where do you suppose all of those big dents came from? A massive impact is credited, at least partially, for wiping out the dinosaurs.

Despite having been responsible for the shower of meteors that pelted the early earth, Jupiter is now our great protector and is responsible for collecting and ejecting a large proportion of the comets that enter into orbit around the Sun (e.g., comet Shoemaker-Levy). Without Jupiter life on Earth at this time would be difficult or impossible due to the large number of cometary collisions (approximately 1,000-10,000 times more collisions) with the Earth (5). There have been many large planets found around other stars recently, but none of these planets are far enough away from their star (most orbit at a position comparable to Mercury) to stabilize the orbits of planets in the zone that can support life or protect these inner planets from cometary bombardment. The presence of Jupiter-like planets in the universe is a rare event. According to Dr. Peter D. Ward of the University of Washington, “All the Jupiters seen today [31 to date] are bad Jupiters. Ours is the only good one we know of. And it’s got to be good, or you’re thrown out into dark space or into your sun.” (See Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, click for review). Is this coincidence or design?

5)Any rocky planet with a molten core will almost certainly have a magnetic field. Mars had one until the core cooled and solidified.

The earth has a magnetic field pointing almost north-south—only 11.5° off. This is an excellent design feature of our planet: it enables navigation by compasses, and it also shields us from dangerous charged particles from the sun.

6) The rotaional speed of the earth has changed significantly over the billions of years of its existence.

As astronomy has shown, the earth’s rotational speed is slowing at the rate of 1 second per 18 months average. According to evolution theory, the earth was formed 4.54 billion years ago, with life appearing within 1 billion years. Accounting for the 1 billion years, the rotational speed of the earth would have been 2.36 billion seconds faster per year than it currently is. That works out to an additional 6.47 million seconds per day. Could life actually form under such conditions? Wind speeds alone, due to the coriolis effect, would prevent life forming. This points to a young earth.

The earth orbits our sun at 66,660 mph, and makes a complete orbit every 365.2425 days. This speed along with the tilt of the earth’s axis allows seasonal changes every 3 months. If the earth were going half that speed, which would double the time in each season. The extremes for each season (polar winters around zero degrees f, and above 100 degree f summers) would be so different that life could not exist here. So like the situation above, we are at the right orbital speed for life to exist.

Scientists have recognized for some time that the rotation rate of a planet must be fine-tuned to make advanced life on that planet possible. If the planet rotates too slowly, the temperature differences between day and night will become too extreme. If the planet rotates too quickly, the jet streams will become too laminar and too stable, causing parts of the planet to be too wet and the rest to be bone dry. Now, two astronomers from the Astrobiology Institute at the University of Arizona have come up with a new twist on the fine-tuning of a planet’s rotation rate.1

The astronomers point out that a rapid rotation rate is the normal state for an Earth-like planet. The only reason why Earth is not rotating much more rapidly is because it has lost most of its angular momentum to its very large and nearby moon. The presently slow rotation rate of Earth prevents an even greater catastrophe for advanced life than the problem of poorly distributed rainfall.

The relatively slow rotation rate establishes an efficient transport of heat from the equatorial regions of the planet to the poles. Such heat transport prevents the polar regions from becoming so cold that the buildup of ice and even frozen carbon dioxide would destabilize the global climate. This result would cause a runaway glaciation2 that would lead to much of the planet becoming frozen for long periods of time.

Thankfully, Earth’s gigantic moon slows the planetâ€™s rotation rate. Thanks also to the Creator for introducing just the right life-forms at just the right times throughout the past 3.8 billion years, and for creating human beings at just the right time in Earth’s history. Humanity enjoys both the optimal rotation rate for sustaining global high-technology civilization and the optimal support base from the planet’s past and present plants and animals.

Gratitude can also be extended to the two astronomers, whose research and insights provide the human species with even more evidence for the supernatural, superintelligent design of the Earth, Moon, and Earth’s life for humanityâ€™s specific benefit.

VeronicaS - 19 March 2012 09:17 PM

9) The thickness of the earth’s crust is not a fixed quantity. As the planet has cooled, the thickness has increased.

You need to learn at least some basic science from scientists, not religious whackos.

You will learn soon that creationist scientists are not just some whackos…..

Researchers have discovered still more indicators of divine design in Earth’s fine-tuned geophysical processes. These indicators belong to an intricate, life-essential cycle (called the carbonate-silicate cycle). This cycle compensates for the ongoing gradual increase in the sun’s brightness.

As more and more of the sun’s fuel (hydrogen) ignites, the sun glows brighter and brighter. At the same time, heat-trapping gases in Earth’s atmosphere (carbon dioxide and water vapor) get transferred, by organisms, from the atmosphere to the crust. In this amazing “double coincidence,” Earth’s decreased heat trapping efficiency exactly compensates for the increased solar brightness so that Earth’s surface temperature remains ideal for life.

For some time scientists have been aware that this cycle demands fine-tuned balancing of erosion rates, plate tectonic activity, volcanic activity, and, of course, the quantity and kinds of life on the planet through time. The most recent research reveals, in addition, the delicacy of the rate at which Earth’s crust plates, particularly the ocean-floor crust plates, move beneath, or “subduct,” below the plates they collide with.

This “subduction” rate, in turn, is governed by the rate at which minerals in the subduction zone (the place where two underwater plates crash together) remove water from the ocean via the hydration process. Both the chemistry of ocean floor rocks and the volume of ocean water must be fine-tuned.

Again, research produced a bonus. It just so happens that a dehydration process at work in the downward-moving slabs leads to production of a talc layer that both lowers and stabilizes the sliding friction of adjoining tectonic plates. This friction reduction and stabilization lowers the earthquake risk to advanced life.

That statement about ‘needs a mind’ is just plain silly. It also speaks of a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is. Descent with modification over time. Lots and lots of time. The individuals do not change, the population does. A member of the newest generation is born, hatched, whatever, with a slight genetic difference. Most of the time it is a handicap, but, occasionally, it offers a slight survival advantage. Or, maybe the environment changes, and some individuals are slightly better suited to survival than others.The individual better suited to survival is slightly more likely to reach maturity and pass that characteristic on to its offspring. Over millions of years, it accumulates. That this happens is a fact. We see complex life here now, but that is the result of billions of years of evolution.

That this happens is a fact - is your faith statement. But since it is historical sciences, it cannot be proven. Secondly, if ET were true, we would have to see it in front of our eyes happening - why does it not today ? Third : molecular biology is not ET’s friend.

Fred Hoyle did work of importance in the field of stellar nucleosynthesis. He also believed that the universe was static and eternal 70 years after Edwin Hubble showed that the universe was expanding, and tons of data was added on supporting the idea that the universe was expanding. This might seem strange, unless someone had heard the conversation that Hoyle had with Richard feynman, in which Hoyle said ” I do not set it as a requirement that something be true.” So, Fred Hoyle’s assessment is to be taken with a grain of salt.

That he was wrong in one issue, does not mean, he was wrong in regard of other issues….

There is a very good reason why it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in schools. There is no constitutional prohibition on teaching bad science in public schools. You can be wrong, stupid, or mis-informed and not be in violation of the constitution.The problem with intelligent design is that it is a couple of pegs below, wrong, stupid or mis-informed. It is religion, pure and simple. And, a very specific brand of religion, and the government can not promote one religion over all of the others. What you are trying to promote is not even bad science. It isn’t science at all.

ID would be religion, if it would pressupose creation. It does not. If follows where the evidence leads us. And the evidence leads us clearly to design. The paradigm is shifting clearly to ID. In the next twenty years we will see a big change in the scientific community, towards accepting the we were planned by God.

Whoever it is that has been pumping your head full of this bullshit has been shamelessly lying to you. It is important that you realize this, so, again, whoever it is that has been pumping your head full of this bullshit has been shamelessly lying to you. There is more liquid water on Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, than there is on Earth. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, sprays out huge plumes of liquid water on a regular basis. Our solar system has a whole bunch of liquid water, and most of it is not on the earth. Water is made of the most common stuff in the universe, and it is all over the place in liquid form.

You have been factually wrong in every statement of fact that you have made. You have yet to say anything specific pertaining to any branch of science that was not flat out wrong. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Quit taking these religious whacko’s word for things, because they are intentionally, willfully lying to you. Go learn some science. From scientists, not crazy people. You can not possibly interpret the data until you know the data, and, at this point, you don’t know anything about anything.

Whoever it is that has been pumping your head full of this bullshit has been shamelessly lying to you. It is important that you realize this, so, again, whoever it is that has been pumping your head full of this bullshit has been shamelessly lying to you. There is more liquid water on Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, than there is on Earth. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, sprays out huge plumes of liquid water on a regular basis. Our solar system has a whole bunch of liquid water, and most of it is not on the earth. Water is made of the most common stuff in the universe, and it is all over the place in liquid form.

You have been factually wrong in every statement of fact that you have made. You have yet to say anything specific pertaining to any branch of science that was not flat out wrong. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Quit taking these religious whacko’s word for things, because they are intentionally, willfully lying to you. Go learn some science. From scientists, not crazy people. You can not possibly interpret the data until you know the data, and, at this point, you don’t know anything about anything.

It seems to me , rather than you look at the evidence, you wish naturalism to be true, so whatever evidence is presented to you in the contrary, you won’t accept it. So its not a question of reason, but of will.
So how about you explain, how you think the universe arose ? what caused it into being ?

It seems to me , rather than you look at the evidence, you wish naturalism to be true, so whatever evidence is presented to you in the contrary, you won’t accept it. So its not a question of reason, but of will.
So how about you explain, how you think the universe arose ? what caused it into being ?

No, it does not seem like that to you at all. You have been spending too much time listening to deceitful people, and it is starting to rub off on you. You haven’t presented any evidence yet, and you know this. You have made a lot of baseless assertions that were factually incorrect, like this last pearl of insight about all of the liquid water being here on the earth, and, after I showed you why you were in error each and every time, you moved on to some other zany idea that came from a religious zealot on one of those creationist websites. I addressed every point that you tried to make, showed you how you were trying to fall back on the god of the gaps argument, and have spent a fair amount of time showing you why that stuff you’ve been parroting is just straight up wrong. You no longer have the luxury of consoling yourself with the idea that I am simply tuning you out because of blind dogmatism. If you can come here with this idea of intelligent design, present your points, have each and every one of them shown to be factually incorrect, discover that all of the things you believed to be evidence are actually wrong, that you were blatantly lied to, and leave still believing in intelligent design, it is you that has been blinded by dogmatism, and you are henceforth willfully lying to anyone that you try to ‘teach’ this foolishness to.

I do not know what happened before the big bang. Neither do you. The difference between us is that I am honest enough to say ‘I don’t know’ when I don’t know, but, you are not. I do know this, though. As I said earlier, having no answer is better than having the wrong answer. You are searching high and low for validation for your wrong answers, and I can’t help you with that.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth’s water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.

God's presence can be detected even in the most commonplace substances, like water. All of us have physical bodies that are mostly water! God provides the water for life. Our planet is close enough to the sun to provide the liquid water that is necessary for life. But if it were just a little farther away, all that water would become ice!

While water itself is a very small molecule (just a three-atom unit of hydrogen and oxygen) it is a primary ingredient of our planet. God's design of how water's specific molecules behave (and the impact water has on our entire planet) is an example of God's creative design and custodial presence, even on the smallest and largest scales.

Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats.

If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that would never melt. Surface ice also helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy.

As a liquid, water’s temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water requires a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This balances temperatures in the earth’s climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, then streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly.

Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. Because God's creative presence is shown in even commonplace yet needful things, we are blessed by the huge quantities of water that flow through our biosphere.

But to you, its all set right by good luck, isnt it ? What a admirable faith you show in chance…..

, and, after I showed you why you were in error each and every time

You have not shown me that. Rather than answer each point, you dodged it to adress them, and are claiming victory. How so ?

,

you moved on to some other zany idea that came from a religious zealot on one of those creationist websites. I addressed every point that you tried to make, showed you how you were trying to fall back on the god of the gaps argument

It seems to me, every time, a atheist is desperate, and has not good answer on hand, he comes up with the god of the gap canard, and thinks he won the argument. My arguments are not based on what we do NOT know, but rather the oposit is the case.

, and have spent a fair amount of time showing you why that stuff you’ve been parroting is just straight up wrong.

You have not shown me that. You only assert you have…..

You no longer have the luxury of consoling yourself with the idea that I am simply tuning you out because of blind dogmatism. If you can come here with this idea of intelligent design, present your points, have each and every one of them shown to be factually incorrect, discover that all of the things you believed to be evidence are actually wrong, that you were blatantly lied to, and leave still believing in intelligent design, it is you that has been blinded by dogmatism, and you are henceforth willfully lying to anyone that you try to ‘teach’ this foolishness to.

Rather than making baseless accusations, how about you come up actually with good explanations, as for example for the last question i adressed to you ?

I do not know what happened before the big bang. Neither do you. The difference between us is that I am honest enough to say ‘I don’t know’ when I don’t know, but, you are not.

I don’t know where is honesty, when we can think about good explanations, and find them, based on what we do know, but do rather appeal to ignorance. Nihilism is always the escape of atheists, when they do think their world view through. But, unfortunately , there is no reason to justify that position. The evidence does lead us clearly to 3 possible reasons for our existence : chance, physical need, and design. The first two can be discarted based on reason and scientific evidence. The only hypotheses that makes sense, and satisifies our intellect, is theism.

I do know this, though. As I said earlier, having no answer is better than having the wrong answer. You are searching high and low for validation for your wrong answers, and I can’t help you with that.

How are you so sure about that ? How can you btw. be sure about anything ? How can you be sure that your reasoning leads you to correct conclusions ? If you believe only in evolution, and that the goal is just surviving of the fittest, then what does make you believe, that evolution has lead to the formation of a brain, which is capable of distinguish between what is true, and what is false ? How do you even eventually know, that what you percieve, isnt just more than a illusion ? If you believe in evolution, whatever you think and believe, you cannot be sure about if its real, if its true , or not…. In reality , based on your world view, you cannot know anything for sure…... you cannot even trust yourself.

Keep repeating all of that to yourself and maybe someday you will become deranged enough to actually believe it yourself. Right now, you have a window of opportunity to jettison these ludicrous notions and go out and learn some science and try to figure out what’s actually true, rather than trying stick legs underneath your magical fantasy land. It will probably not be open for long, and then you will be back to stuck in the darkness of your ignorance.